16-Year-Old Accuses Mom of Facebook Slander

krupted said:
i think were seeing the nanny-state effect trickle down to this generation's teens. i have never seen so many conceited kids... everyone is entitled to everything and if youre over 25, youre old! :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

yeah its pretty crazy how kids are these days it'll be interesting to see how this turns out because she doesnt have legal custody but is the kids mom and he forgot to log off HER computer. btw im 23 and feel old as hell :-P
 
techie254 said:
yeah its pretty crazy how kids are these days it'll be interesting to see how this turns out because she doesnt have legal custody but is the kids mom and he forgot to log off HER computer. btw im 23 and feel old as hell :-P
Click to expand...

Yeah, it's pretty retarded. From reading the article, I am fairly sure there was more that got the Mom upset than just the driving fast remarks, she just chose not to elaborate in the media. If the kid did not want others to have access to his junk he should have done a better job keeping his sessions and credentials private. Things like this used to be considered "Learning a Lesson"...you know....part of actually growing up. Now we sue for them. Amazing.
 
ekuest said:
stupidity has nothing to do with the law. the laws are rules that are not subject to change just because the kid was dumb. did his mom have the social right to mess with his facebook? maybe, we dont have enough facts from the article to know. did she have the legal right to mess with his facebook? absolutely not as she had no legal rights over him. its not like we're siding with the idiot kid, we're siding with the law. you need to understand that whats socially correct and whats legal are two very different things. fortunately/unfortunately, when you SUE and go to COURT the judge and jury only care about LEGAL implications, not SOCIAL implications.
Click to expand...

+1.
Needs to be quoted again since some people don't have a brain to understand what this guy just said.

And last I heard, the United States is a nation of laws. Kid was perfectly in his right to sue. Even if it makes him seem like an asshole, he's still perfectly in his right, since his mom broke the law.

Hmm I wonder what the answer to this question would be:
If your best friend broke into a bank and robbed it, and only you knew who his identity was, would you turn him into police? Does that make you an asshole? What if it were a parent? Would you turn them in?
 
techie254 said:
yeah its pretty crazy how kids are these days it'll be interesting to see how this turns out because she doesnt have legal custody but is the kids mom and he forgot to log off HER computer. btw im 23 and feel old as hell :-P
Click to expand...

I'm fairly certain that failing to log out of a computer does not constitute giving consent to tinker with someone else's crap. I think the kid's a douche and the mom's a nutter, but I also think the law is pretty clear.

Forgetting to log out of your banking session, for example, doesn't give anyone else who stumbles across it permission to rob you blind. Yeah, it makes you a freaking retard, but it doesn't make it legal.

Everyone around here just loves to try and pick and choose sides, when the only thing that matters in this case is the law.
 
stealthy123 said:
socially correct is bullshit.

That is his mom, she felt 5 years ago that living with his grandparents was for the best, so she gave them custody.

That is still his mom. He was bragging about doing illegal/dangerous stuff on his facebook and he left it up and he got his ass bit for being stupid.

It's not society's job to even get involved in this. Someone needs to punch that kid in the fave so the little twat learns a lesson. He learns nothing from this if his mom gets in trouble for trying to discipline him.

In real a socially conscience society(lol) the courts would be charging him with the speeding and putting the little shit into therapy and making him do community service for being a doucher and clogging the courts with his childish bullshit.
Click to expand...

This.
 
I don't know all the facts in this case, but based on what had been presented, she doesn't have custody, but she may still have guardianship rights. They are separate and distinct, custody is usually granted in family courts, while transference of guardianship falls to a probate court. From the article it sounds like she turned over custody, due to fears about her own mental faculties, which we nothing about. So, it is very likely she maintains guardianship rights and could sensor his actions. Per the article the twerp was posting a lot of crap and and admitted to reckless driving, possibly felony speeding. Her actions appear to be justified and as far as libel goes, there doesn't appear to be a lot of precedent regarding adults vs minors in libel proceedings, so I have no idea how this would turn out.
 
There are too many people to reply to so i'll just post a reply that would touch on all parts that i see wrong with what

Weenis actually it has only been 5 years since he went to live with his grandparents that would't exactly make him a small child. You make it sounds like she hasn't been part of his life since he was 5.

Nowhere in the article does it say that she gave up full rights to her son. She gave custody of him to the grandparents and he moved in with them, but I didn't see where it said that she gave up all rights to him. Who is to say that they don't have joint custody of him or something like that. When parents get a divorce one parent gets primary custody with the other getting visitation, maybe this is about the same. Lets assume that it was. Mom had primary custody and boy was over at his dad's house doing something that he shouldn't. Are all of you saying that the dad wouldn't be able to punish him as he didn't have primary custody?

He was still going over there to visit so she was still a part of his life. It isn't like she cut all ties with him. Her mental issues could have just been depression due to the divorce, that doesn't have to mean that she was a nut case.

Also everyone seems to have the mind set that only a parent can punish a child. If your neice or nephew were at your house and broke the window of your neighbor would you have the right to punish them? What if they were doing illegal things on your computer? Could you kick them off? If your found out that your 13 year old niece was sending nude pictures to guys on facebook after she forgot to log off at your house, would you leave her account alone and do nothing or would you change her password to keep her out of the account till her parents could talk to her about that and remove the pics?

Now i will admit that her not having primary custody of him might change things a little bit. However we also don't know the entire story here. He was posting about multiple wrong actives he had done not just the speeding. So it isn't like she just flipped out after one thing he had a list of things that she didn't like. She also just said that she changed the passwords to his email and facebook accounts to keep him off of them and she didn't post anything about him. So who knows what was posted if anything that he is calling slander. There is also no mention of if she told his grandparents about this afterwords to have them take over the punishment. Maybe she changed the passwords then called them telling them about what he had done and gave them the passwords.

As for the comment made about her not being very adult like in her handleing of this. If all she did was change his passwords after he left everything logged in then I don't see what is wrong with that nor how that is childish. He is still her son and she wanted to look out for him. HE is the one acting childish if anyone is.

This will be an interesting case due to the situation. The main thing to keep in mind is that this isn't just some random person that did this but was his mother who was still part of his life even if she did give give to the grandparents. I find this to be very different than had she given him up to the grandparents and then ran off to have nothing to do with him. Or had she put him up for adoption when born only to then later on find him and try to control him. There is also the standpoint of if the grandparents were will to allow her to still issue punishment to him. If the grandparents were still allowing her to treat him as her son in full even though he lived with him then she had the right to punish him as she seen fit. As a guardian you have the right to give others the ablity to punish your child.
 
EchtoGammut said:
I don't know all the facts in this case, but based on what had been presented, she doesn't have custody, but she may still have guardianship rights. They are separate and distinct, custody is usually granted in family courts, while transference of guardianship falls to a probate court. From the article it sounds like she turned over custody, due to fears about her own mental faculties, which we nothing about. So, it is very likely she maintains guardianship rights and could sensor his actions. Per the article the twerp was posting a lot of crap and and admitted to reckless driving, possibly felony speeding. Her actions appear to be justified and as far as libel goes, there doesn't appear to be a lot of precedent regarding adults vs minors in libel proceedings, so I have no idea how this would turn out.
Click to expand...

i was writing up my post when you posted this. This is what i was trying to refer to in the first part of my post. You worded it much better.

I'm glad to see that i'm not the only one that noted that small detail.
 
Hmm. What would I do if I were a minor and someone hijacked my accounts and was using them to post false information about me?

Can't complain to the ISP or Facebook. As a minor, the former would not listen to me about resetting the password. The latter would just send updated credentials to the e-mail account I'm locked out of.

Alright, so I plead with the identify thief (don't kid yourselves, as soon as she typed word one on that account, that's what she became) to release MY accounts. No dice.

Second attempt: Stop using my accounts. No deal.

Third attempt: Close my accounts so I can open new 'clean' ones. Uh uh.

I don't see that he had any other choice.
 
Exavior said:
There are too many people to reply to so i'll just post a reply that would touch on all parts that i see wrong with what

Weenis actually it has only been 5 years since he went to live with his grandparents that would't exactly make him a small child. You make it sounds like she hasn't been part of his life since he was 5.

Nowhere in the article does it say that she gave up full rights to her son. She gave custody of him to the grandparents and he moved in with them, but I didn't see where it said that she gave up all rights to him. Who is to say that they don't have joint custody of him or something like that. When parents get a divorce one parent gets primary custody with the other getting visitation, maybe this is about the same. Lets assume that it was. Mom had primary custody and boy was over at his dad's house doing something that he shouldn't. Are all of you saying that the dad wouldn't be able to punish him as he didn't have primary custody?

He was still going over there to visit so she was still a part of his life. It isn't like she cut all ties with him. Her mental issues could have just been depression due to the divorce, that doesn't have to mean that she was a nut case.

Also everyone seems to have the mind set that only a parent can punish a child. If your neice or nephew were at your house and broke the window of your neighbor would you have the right to punish them? What if they were doing illegal things on your computer? Could you kick them off? If your found out that your 13 year old niece was sending nude pictures to guys on facebook after she forgot to log off at your house, would you leave her account alone and do nothing or would you change her password to keep her out of the account till her parents could talk to her about that and remove the pics?

Now i will admit that her not having primary custody of him might change things a little bit. However we also don't know the entire story here. He was posting about multiple wrong actives he had done not just the speeding. So it isn't like she just flipped out after one thing he had a list of things that she didn't like. She also just said that she changed the passwords to his email and facebook accounts to keep him off of them and she didn't post anything about him. So who knows what was posted if anything that he is calling slander. There is also no mention of if she told his grandparents about this afterwords to have them take over the punishment. Maybe she changed the passwords then called them telling them about what he had done and gave them the passwords.

As for the comment made about her not being very adult like in her handleing of this. If all she did was change his passwords after he left everything logged in then I don't see what is wrong with that nor how that is childish. He is still her son and she wanted to look out for him. HE is the one acting childish if anyone is.

This will be an interesting case due to the situation. The main thing to keep in mind is that this isn't just some random person that did this but was his mother who was still part of his life even if she did give give to the grandparents. I find this to be very different than had she given him up to the grandparents and then ran off to have nothing to do with him. Or had she put him up for adoption when born only to then later on find him and try to control him. There is also the standpoint of if the grandparents were will to allow her to still issue punishment to him. If the grandparents were still allowing her to treat him as her son in full even though he lived with him then she had the right to punish him as she seen fit. As a guardian you have the right to give others the ablity to punish your child.
Click to expand...

The age of 11 makes you a kid, I know very few cases where an 11 year old is mature.

She admitted to posting things about him and having "conversations" with his friends.

What she did was illegal, period. Regardless of whether you I or the Pope agree with the social implications, the legal implications dictate that he can file suit against her.

Minors cannot file suits unless they're being backed by police officers, lest they have guardians with them if I recall correctly.. We sure aren't getting the whole story.

Also, to your note... no your uncles and aunts cannot "punish" anyone other than their children.

I used to live 500 feet from an Aunt/Uncles house, if they ever tried to lay a hand on me or punish me my parents would've been livid.

Social beliefs and rules have no deciding factor upon laws being enforced.

Whether or not she had a social or moral obligation to do what she did does not negate the legal ramifications.

To some people revenge killing after someone murdered your family would be completely acceptable, in the eyes of the law however it is not. That is an extreme example, but some people don't seem to understand the separation between social and legal issues without it being in such terms.
 
If the lady wasn't his guardian, she had no right to go dig around his stuff and post things from his account.

Now if the case was that the lady was his mother and legal guardian - then yes, I say she had full power to do whatever in the fuck she wanted to his account, within reason. She doesn't agree with him having an account? Delete it, fair game.

...but she wasn't his guardian...so she had no place at all.
 
EchtoGammut said:
I don't know all the facts in this case, but based on what had been presented, she doesn't have custody, but she may still have guardianship rights. They are separate and distinct, custody is usually granted in family courts, while transference of guardianship falls to a probate court. From the article it sounds like she turned over custody, due to fears about her own mental faculties, which we nothing about. So, it is very likely she maintains guardianship rights and could sensor his actions. Per the article the twerp was posting a lot of crap and and admitted to reckless driving, possibly felony speeding. Her actions appear to be justified and as far as libel goes, there doesn't appear to be a lot of precedent regarding adults vs minors in libel proceedings, so I have no idea how this would turn out.
Click to expand...

Aside from landing herself in court, I fail to see what her actions accomplished. Taking away the kids car keys, might stop him from speeding, but her actions did nothing.

As for her legal rights, I question whether she has any authority over the kid. If she did, it seems likely she would have called her parents and had them cut his internet access off.

It's all speculation, but it doesn't sound like she could just take the kid back if she wanted.....and if she can, then why hasn't she?
 
It's entirely different when you find out she doesn't have custody of the kid. In that context, she probably doesn't have the same rights to do things like this.

Interesting stuff.
 
WicKeDcHilD said:
The sad part is people feel she has the right to do things like this if she has legal rights.
Click to expand...

Of course she does, it's called PARENTING. If you think otherwise, please for God's sake don't have children yourself and burden the rest of society with their likely poor behavior.
 
Madman0 said:
Of course she does, it's called PARENTING. If you think otherwise, please for God's sake don't have children yourself and burden the rest of society with their likely poor behavior.
Click to expand...

Please do us a favour and take your own advice also.

Seriously, rude much? I don't want to say you don't have the right to an opinion, but your post is unacceptably rude and confrontational. I'm sorry to feel the need to respond in kind as such, but I feel your stance leads me no choice.

Parents have the right to parent within reason. Logging into your son's Facebook account, writing posts and changing his password is NOT parenting: it's called being a control freak.

A responsible parent comes up to their child and talks about the issue. Some yelling may be involved, it may be uncomfortable, but you simply do not have the right as a parent to go behind your child's back like that.

Children learn best when you directly confront them in a way that actually helps them. Underhanded plots only galvanise them against you and lead to more irresponsible or reckless behaviour.

I work in secondary education, which caters mostly for 11-16 years olds (who are all kids to me). You can tell what sort of parents a kid has within a very short period of time just by the way they act and so far, none of my predictions has proven wrong when talking with the parents.

There's a general rule of thumb you can apply: don't do to your kid what you wouldn't want done to you. That means you basically have to not be an arse. You can parent quite perfectly and with very strict boundaries, which you should always stick to, but you cannot just act like you can do anything you want to your child because they're yours. This is the same logic by which people beat up and sometimes kill their kids, then try to justify it. For a larger proportion of controlling parents, this logic is used to make life for their kids hell for whatever reasons they choose or to try to make kids in their exact image, who are then berated for having independent or different values.

So please, next time, before making such a harsh snap value judgement on someone who made a perfectly valid point, take a deep breath and walk away.

You didn't attack the poster's argument: you attacked the poster. Arguments ad hominem have their place, but for the mostpart they are best avoided as they only serve to make you look less intelligent and less knowing.

May peace and wisdom find you.
 
Madman0 said:
Of course she does, it's called PARENTING. If you think otherwise, please for God's sake don't have children yourself and burden the rest of society with their likely poor behavior.
Click to expand...

Sorry that trying to ruin my child's future, just to control and force them to live how I see fit, doesn't live up to your breeding needs. I will be sure not to plant my seed, just because you said so.
 
Weenis said:
Posting that you drove in excess of the speed limit because you are mad at a girl is bragging? Your reading comprehension needs some work.

His mom has no legal right to discipline him, so the same could be said about her by your logic.

It's society's job to uphold our laws, she broke our laws. Regardless of whether or not you agree to those laws, she agreed to abide by them by living where she does.

It really bothers me that people think courts and police officers should just look the other way because they don't agree with the laws.

Just because you have a bias opinion of someone you've never met does not mean you get to decide whether or not she violated our laws. With the facts we were given, she violated law.

Did he? Sounds like it, depending upon the area and the circumstances of him speeding. Do I condone that? No.

Just because he did something illegal and foolish doesn't mean she gets off the hook for doing something equally as illegal and foolish.
Click to expand...

You keep talking about the law and yet I don't hear you argue that the kids license should be taken for his excessive speed.
 
Until he turns 18 or is emancipated from her she is fully within her rights to do that. Changing things around and stuff definitely won't help much b/c it just makes the kid super pissed and then it's back to square one really, but she is totally allowed to do it. There are too many adults that never had to grow up for whatever reason, they are polluting the minds of youth with their immature concepts and reason.
 
Syndicated_Death said:
You keep talking about the law and yet I don't hear you argue that the kids license should be taken for his excessive speed.
Click to expand...

The article isn't about that and posting on facebook that you were speeding doesn't somehow grok the police evidence that you were speeding. Also speeding tickets don't usually result in having your license taken away. There are places out here in the west were there are NO SPEED LIMITS but there are still laws regarding safe driving. No, I don't think they are as far south as Idaho but they are out here.

And if you actually go read this thread you will see many people comment that the child acted irresponsibly and stated that he broke the law. But that doesn't make it ok for this lady, who is his biological mother, but just some lady as far as the legal system is concerned, to hack into his account and change his passwords. Man if ever there was a time to just post over and over again, RTFA.

RTFA.
 
Ibanez said:
Until he turns 18 or is emancipated from her she is fully within her rights to do that. Changing things around and stuff definitely won't help much b/c it just makes the kid super pissed and then it's back to square one really, but she is totally allowed to do it. There are too many adults that never had to grow up for whatever reason, they are polluting the minds of youth with their immature concepts and reason.
Click to expand...

RTFA.
 
Syndicated_Death said:
You keep talking about the law and yet I don't hear you argue that the kids license should be taken for his excessive speed.
Click to expand...

Last night I drove my car at 150 MPH down a residential street and killed an entire family, which I immediately tossed in my trunk and buried at an undisclosed location.

Using your logic, I should be ticketed for speeding, charged with manslaughter (or whatever law applies) and so on.

Only problem is there's absolutely no proof that any of that occurred. Just because someone posts something on the internet doesn't mean it's true.

So whether or not someone should take his license is unknown.

Regardless, I'm not sure she has any rights at all. My guess is they're very limited.
 
Man i know if my friends and i knew a kid like this our age when we were growing up he would never hear the end of it. This has to be the biggest pansie child i have ever heard of.
 
snowden said:
The article isn't about that and posting on facebook that you were speeding doesn't somehow grok the police evidence that you were speeding. Also speeding tickets don't usually result in having your license taken away. There are places out here in the west were there are NO SPEED LIMITS but there are still laws regarding safe driving. No, I don't think they are as far south as Idaho but they are out here.

And if you actually go read this thread you will see many people comment that the child acted irresponsibly and stated that he broke the law. But that doesn't make it ok for this lady, who is his biological mother, but just some lady as far as the legal system is concerned, to hack into his account and change his passwords. Man if ever there was a time to just post over and over again, RTFA.

RTFA.
Click to expand...

Thanks for your blind statement about reading the article, which, I did. Do you some how think that reading the article can't glean more than one side of a story or, is it only yours that should be heard? My statement stands if you're going to bitch about one person breaking the law and not the other then you're mentally deficient. Sounds as if half the crowd that is routing for mom to be held accountable is completely ignoring the original wrong in this equation. If you're willing to assume she "hacked" his account then you have to concede that there is a DAMN good chance he wasn't lying when he spoke about speeding. Either way a logic is being applied stating that something neither of us knows for a fact indeed did occur.

Only kids best interest seems to have been in in mind here. However, everyone here thinks this has been some sort of attack on a personal level.

For those of you going to bat for this kid I hope you enjoy your loveless children who owe you nothing and expect everything from you.
 
So the offline equivilent of this would be:

Concerned Mother reads son's diary. Mother photocopies pages from son's Diary. Mother posts photocopies of son's Diary about drinking, doing drugs and other acitivities on public neighbourhood bulletinboard. Son is ashamed of actions and like a mature adult sues his own mother on grounds he feels she is Libel for the slander?

I guess since she still has control of his email address/facebook, the offline equivilent would be she checks his mail sent to their house/shared residence and didn't give back the Diary.
 
WBurchnall said:
So the offline equivilent of this would be:

Concerned Mother reads son's diary. Mother photocopies pages from son's Diary. Mother posts photocopies of son's Diary about drinking, doing drugs and other acitivities on public neighbourhood bulletinboard. Son is ashamed of actions and like a mature adult sues his own mother on grounds he feels she is Libel for the slander?

I guess since she still has control of his email address/facebook, the offline equivalent would be she checks his mail sent to their house/shared residence and didn't give back the Diary.
Click to expand...

How do you figure? He posted this stuff on Facebook. She then posted other stuff on that page. The fact is neither you, nor I, know what she posted. One thing is certain: if the DA decides to prosecute, she probably broke the law. This is such an oddball case, that I think the DA will let it slide if it's borderline.

I think the thing to keep in mind is that the kid can simply say he was lying when he said he was driving 150 MPH. OTOH, there's almost certainly physical evidence that the mother changed the password and made said posts....hell, it appears she isn't denying it.

To me it all comes down to does she she have any authority over her son in the eyes of the law? If she does, then I keep asking why she didn't just inform her parents....or take the kid back if her parents are unwilling to do as she requests?

And nobody is defending the kids driving (assuming it was true).
 
Exavior said:
There are too many people to reply to so i'll just post a reply that would touch on all parts that i see wrong with what

Weenis actually it has only been 5 years since he went to live with his grandparents that would't exactly make him a small child. You make it sounds like she hasn't been part of his life since he was 5.

Nowhere in the article does it say that she gave up full rights to her son. She gave custody of him to the grandparents and he moved in with them, but I didn't see where it said that she gave up all rights to him. Who is to say that they don't have joint custody of him or something like that. When parents get a divorce one parent gets primary custody with the other getting visitation, maybe this is about the same. Lets assume that it was. Mom had primary custody and boy was over at his dad's house doing something that he shouldn't. Are all of you saying that the dad wouldn't be able to punish him as he didn't have primary custody?

He was still going over there to visit so she was still a part of his life. It isn't like she cut all ties with him. Her mental issues could have just been depression due to the divorce, that doesn't have to mean that she was a nut case.

Also everyone seems to have the mind set that only a parent can punish a child. If your neice or nephew were at your house and broke the window of your neighbor would you have the right to punish them? What if they were doing illegal things on your computer? Could you kick them off? If your found out that your 13 year old niece was sending nude pictures to guys on facebook after she forgot to log off at your house, would you leave her account alone and do nothing or would you change her password to keep her out of the account till her parents could talk to her about that and remove the pics?

Now i will admit that her not having primary custody of him might change things a little bit. However we also don't know the entire story here. He was posting about multiple wrong actives he had done not just the speeding. So it isn't like she just flipped out after one thing he had a list of things that she didn't like. She also just said that she changed the passwords to his email and facebook accounts to keep him off of them and she didn't post anything about him. So who knows what was posted if anything that he is calling slander. There is also no mention of if she told his grandparents about this afterwords to have them take over the punishment. Maybe she changed the passwords then called them telling them about what he had done and gave them the passwords.

As for the comment made about her not being very adult like in her handleing of this. If all she did was change his passwords after he left everything logged in then I don't see what is wrong with that nor how that is childish. He is still her son and she wanted to look out for him. HE is the one acting childish if anyone is.

This will be an interesting case due to the situation. The main thing to keep in mind is that this isn't just some random person that did this but was his mother who was still part of his life even if she did give give to the grandparents. I find this to be very different than had she given him up to the grandparents and then ran off to have nothing to do with him. Or had she put him up for adoption when born only to then later on find him and try to control him. There is also the standpoint of if the grandparents were will to allow her to still issue punishment to him. If the grandparents were still allowing her to treat him as her son in full even though he lived with him then she had the right to punish him as she seen fit. As a guardian you have the right to give others the ablity to punish your child.
Click to expand...

^THIS!!
Wow I can't believe how some of you are siding with the kid...
I don't know what she posted, but unless it was seriously out of line, she is well within legal rights to change his password. This would have only been legally important if the grandparents were suing her. However, I seriously doubt the grandparents took the kids side, and probably took the mother's side (which is why the whiny kid is suing). What if she took away his car keys for speeding? You think he should sue her for theft?
Let's flip this around, and the mom/dad still was together. The kid was on their grandparents' computer and the grandparents changed their passwords. You think a court would even look at this? Legally it's the same damn thing, except for the divorce.
 
Typical 16 year old who thinks he can do what ever he wants and the world owes him the right to do it.
 
hl3395 said:
^THIS!!
Wow I can't believe how some of you are siding with the kid...
I don't know what she posted, but unless it was seriously out of line, she is well within legal rights to change his password. This would have only been legally important if the grandparents were suing her. However, I seriously doubt the grandparents took the kids side, and probably took the mother's side (which is why the whiny kid is suing). What if she took away his car keys for speeding? You think he should sue her for theft?
Let's flip this around, and the mom/dad still was together. The kid was on their grandparents' computer and the grandparents changed their passwords. You think a court would even look at this? Legally it's the same damn thing, except for the divorce.
Click to expand...
I think you're missing a big point. She didn't just change his passwords. She posted personal, defamatory, and allegedly false information about him IN HIS NAME by using his account. That crosses the line and he has no non-litigious way of stopping it. It's a harassment suit, people!

To use your analogy, she didn't just take his keys. She is driving around town in his car dropping off bits of his diary into his friends' mailboxes. And maybe toilet-papering the odd house of friends of his she doesn't like. *As* him.

So yeah, he's a big wuss who will be made fun of at school for suing his mom. That's much better than trying to live down the bed-wetting anecdotes, naked baby pictures, homoerotic fantasies or whatever the @#$% else she's posting up there in the meantime.

I would be shocked if the DA would have taken this case if he wasn't already emancipated or equivalent.
 
Weenis all this shit you keep saying about how because she dont have custody she has no rights is plain wrong. Your arguing back and forth and your whole argument is based on pure ignorance.

Nowhere in that article does it say she signed her rights away. Losing custody or giving custody to another does not mean the same as signing your rights away.

Based off what is in this article the mother had every right to do what she did and i applaud her for doing something. Right or wrong in the end the fact that she tried made her a better mom than quite a few out there.
 
Disposed said:
Weenis all this shit you keep saying about how because she dont have custody she has no rights is plain wrong. Your arguing back and forth and your whole argument is based on pure ignorance.

Nowhere in that article does it say she signed her rights away. Losing custody or giving custody to another does not mean the same as signing your rights away.

Based off what is in this article the mother had every right to do what she did and i applaud her for doing something. Right or wrong in the end the fact that she tried made her a better mom than quite a few out there.
Click to expand...

Well damn exavior beet me to it. Either way points still stands.

Weenis I can tell you without any doubt that you have no clue at all WTF you are talking about and should probably just STFU and do a little reading first.

Just out of curiosity you are still a teenager arent you?
 
that kid should stop being a whiney bitch and get over himself

that said, the mom was stupid to post stuff on his account
 
ekuest said:
stupidity has nothing to do with the law. the laws are rules that are not subject to change just because the kid was dumb. did his mom have the social right to mess with his facebook? maybe, we dont have enough facts from the article to know. did she have the legal right to mess with his facebook? absolutely not as she had no legal rights over him. its not like we're siding with the idiot kid, we're siding with the law. you need to understand that whats socially correct and whats legal are two very different things. fortunately/unfortunately, when you SUE and go to COURT the judge and jury only care about LEGAL implications, not SOCIAL implications.
Click to expand...

Wrong. It is called the letter of the law vs. the spirit of the law. Many times the courts will side with the spirit of the law, especially in regards to family matters. Making judgments or taking sides when none of us knows the full story is pretty asinine. Regardless, if this goes to the court the story not being told will come out and I'm sure the court will decide based off the evidence.

I once thought of suing my dad since he sold both my motorcycle and 64 'Cuda while I was in the Navy and threw away my comic collection for being Satanic. About 50 grand worth of shit sold and thrown away and you know what. Not a huge deal. I was pretty pissed at the time but I wasn't willing to throw away my relationship with my parents over mere trinkets in the grand scheme of things. So this article just boggles me.
 
And people wonder why kids are thugs. You have people defending thugs and attacking parents...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top